Terry vs ohio case

Thursday, 31 October, - Monday, 10 June, Facts:

Terry vs ohio case

Following is the case brief for Terry v. Ohio Three men, including Terry defendantwere approached by an officer who had observed their alleged suspicious behavior.

The officer suspected the men were planning to rob the store. After the officer inquired into what they were doing, the men responded by mumbling. Officer then searched each man, uncovering a gun from two of the three suspects.

Terry, one of the men in possession of a gun, was convicted of possession of a concealed weapon. Terry appealed claiming the search violated his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures. The United States Supreme Court held that the search was reasonable so long as the officer has reasonable suspicion a crime was afoot.

Ohio Case Brief Statement of Facts: Officer McFadden observed two men outside of a store walking up to the window then away several times. A third man met up with the initial two and engaged in conversation. The plainly clothed officer developed suspicion that the men may be planning to rob the store.

McFadden approached the men and after identifying himself as an officer asked what they were doing. The men mumbled back a response.

Terry vs ohio case

McFadden then grabbed Terry, turned him around and patted him down to determine if he was armed. After conducting the same search on the second man, another gun was revealed.

Once at trialthe officer testified he thought the men may have been armed. An Ohio trial court convicted Terry with carrying a concealed weapon. Terry appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.

May a police officer detain an individual on the street absent probable cause and conduct a limited search to find weapons? Affirmed by the Majority. Rule of Law or Legal Principle Applied: An officer may identify himself as the police and make initial inquiries. This conduct is proper when the officer observes conduct leading him to develop reasonable suspicion that a crime is occurring or about to occur.

If the officer believes a threat to himself of others still exists after such an inquiry, a limited search may be performed to find weapons. The Court held that an individual is seized when stopped by a police officer on the street because he is not free to walk away.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

As a result, the Fourth Amendment protections prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures apply. The Court held that the constitutionality of the search depended on whether or not the scope of the search was reasonable in light of the circumstances.

In addition, when an individual is stopped on the street, the police may conduct a proper search for weapons if based on the facts and circumstances, the officer reasonably believes the person is armed. Here, considering the circumstances, it was reasonable for the experienced officer to suspect the two men were planning a robbery.

The officer stated that the pat down was conducted under the belief either men could have been armed. The police may immediately stop and search a citizen on the street to ensure their own safety. Asking questions first is not required. A magistrate must establish probable cause before issuing a warrant.

Permitting a police officer to conduct a search and seizure on the basis of reasonable suspicion provides an officer with greater authority than a judge and is improper.The Supreme Court released orders from the November 16 conference on Monday morning; the justices did not add any new cases to their merits docket..

The calendar for the December sitting, which will begin on Monday, November 26, is available on the Supreme Court’s website. Case opinion for US Supreme Court TENNESSEE v. GARNER. Read the Court's full decision on FindLaw. Terry v. Ohio was the landmark case that provided the name for the “ Terry stop.” It established the constitutionality of a limited search for weapons when an officer has reasonable suspicion to believe a crime is afoot based on the circumstances.

Join over , law students who have used Quimbee to achieve academic success in law school through expert-written outlines, a massive bank of case briefs, engaging video lessons, comprehensive practice exams with model answers, and practice questions.

The Background of Terry v. Ohio () Martin McFadden, who was a police officer in the State of Ohio’s Cleveland Division, had noticed that two individuals appeared to be acting in a nature perceived as suspicious by McFadden.


Terry v. Ohio - Wikipedia